typo in glossary content

[robi-y]

The text was somewhat confusing between the revision itself and the
author.

Signed-off-by: Reuven Yagel robi@post.jce.ac.il

[gitgitgadget]

Welcome to GitGitGadget

Hi @robi-y, and welcome to GitGitGadget, the GitHub App to send patch series to the Git mailing list from GitHub Pull Requests.

Please make sure that your Pull Request has a good description, as it will be used as cover letter.

Also, it is a good idea to review the commit messages one last time, as the Git project expects them in a quite specific form:

• the lines should not exceed 76 columns,
• the first line should be like a header and typically start with a prefix like "tests:" or "revisions:" to state which subsystem the change is about, and
• the commit messages' body should be describing the "why?" of the change.
• Finally, the commit messages should end in a Signed-off-by: line matching the commits' author.

It is in general a good idea to await the automated test ("Checks") in this Pull Request before contributing the patches, e.g. to avoid trivial issues such as unportable code.

Contributing the patches

Before you can contribute the patches, your GitHub username needs to be added to the list of permitted users. Any already-permitted user can do that, by adding a comment to your PR of the form /allow. A good way to find other contributors is to locate recent pull requests where someone has been /allowed:

• Search: is:pr is:open "/allow"

Both the person who commented /allow and the PR author are able to /allow you.

An alternative is the channel #git-devel on the FreeNode IRC network:

<newcontributor> I've just created my first PR, could someone please /allow me? https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git/pull/12345
<veteran> newcontributor: it is done
<newcontributor> thanks!

Once on the list of permitted usernames, you can contribute the patches to the Git mailing list by adding a PR comment /submit.

If you want to see what email(s) would be sent for a /submit request, add a PR comment /preview to have the email(s) sent to you. You must have a public GitHub email address for this.

After you submit, GitGitGadget will respond with another comment that contains the link to the cover letter mail in the Git mailing list archive. Please make sure to monitor the discussion in that thread and to address comments and suggestions (while the comments and suggestions will be mirrored into the PR by GitGitGadget, you will still want to reply via mail).

If you do not want to subscribe to the Git mailing list just to be able to respond to a mail, you can download the mbox from the Git mailing list archive (click the (raw) link), then import it into your mail program. If you use GMail, you can do this via:

curl -g --user "<EMailAddress>:<Password>" \
    --url "imaps://imap.gmail.com/INBOX" -T /path/to/raw.txt

To iterate on your change, i.e. send a revised patch or patch series, you will first want to (force-)push to the same branch. You probably also want to modify your Pull Request description (or title). It is a good idea to summarize the revision by adding something like this to the cover letter (read: by editing the first comment on the PR, i.e. the PR description):

Changes since v1:
- Fixed a typo in the commit message (found by ...)
- Added a code comment to ... as suggested by ...
...

To send a new iteration, just add another PR comment with the contents: /submit.

Need help?

New contributors who want advice are encouraged to join git-mentoring@googlegroups.com, where volunteers who regularly contribute to Git are willing to answer newbie questions, give advice, or otherwise provide mentoring to interested contributors. You must join in order to post or view messages, but anyone can join.

You may also be able to find help in real time in the developer IRC channel, #git-devel on Freenode. Remember that IRC does not support offline messaging, so if you send someone a private message and log out, they cannot respond to you. The scrollback of #git-devel is archived, though.

[gitgitgadget]

There is an issue in commit 231d2d8:
Commit not signed off

[dscho]

/allow

[gitgitgadget]

User robi-y is now allowed to use GitGitGadget.

WARNING: robi-y has no public email address set on GitHub

[robi-y]

Changes since v1:

• Fixed the commit message according to the contribution message above

[robi-y]

/submit

[gitgitgadget]

Submitted as pull.957.git.1621406381404.gitgitgadget@gmail.com

To fetch this version into FETCH_HEAD:

git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-957/robi-y/master-v1

To fetch this version to local tag pr-957/robi-y/master-v1:

git fetch --no-tags https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git tag pr-957/robi-y/master-v1

[gitgitgadget]

On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):

"Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> index 67c7a50b96a0..e75aed00ffe1 100644
> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ current branch integrates with) obviously do not work, as there is no
>  	<<def_revision,revision>> and you are "merging" another
>  	<<def_branch,branch>>'s changes that happen to be a descendant of what
>  	you have. In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>>
> -	<<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his
> +	<<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to this
>  	revision. This will happen frequently on a
>  	<<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote
>  	<<def_repository,repository>>.

Actually, "his" is what was intended by the original introduced at
9290cd58 (Added definitions for a few words:, 2006-05-03).  

The "fast-forward" situation it describes happens when you try to
merge somebody else's history into your history, and if you do not
have anything of your own since the history of the other party
forked from your history.  In such a situation, instead of creating
a merge commit whose parents are the tip of your history and the tip
of the history of the other party, you just update the pointer that
points at the tip of your history (i.e. HEAD) to point at the commit
at the tip of the history of the other party.

One would refer to that commit, as "the tip of _HIS_ history", if
one does not bother trying to be gender neutral by repeatedly saying
"the other party".  So, "his" you touched is correct.  The
description that leads to this part talks about two "revisions"
(i.e. the one you have, and the other one you are merging), and
rewriting it to "this" revision makes it unclear which one is meant.

I do not mind neutering the expression with "the other party",
especially since that would help reduce confusion.  How about
phrasing

    In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>>
    <<def_commit,commit>>, but instead just update your branch to
    point at the same revision as the other party's.  This will
    happen often ...

perhaps?

Thanks.

[robi-y]

Hello :-)
I agree that your phrasing is less confusing, but I think the original text does not talk about the author but rather on the revision itself (at least in it's current state), so maybe just correct by:
this newer revision
?
Thanks!

[gitgitgadget]

On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> "Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> diff --git a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> index 67c7a50b96a0..e75aed00ffe1 100644
>> --- a/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> +++ b/Documentation/glossary-content.txt
>> @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ current branch integrates with) obviously do not work, as there is no
>>  	<<def_revision,revision>> and you are "merging" another
>>  	<<def_branch,branch>>'s changes that happen to be a descendant of what
>>  	you have. In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>>
>> -	<<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his
>> +	<<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to this
>>  	revision. This will happen frequently on a
>>  	<<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote
>>  	<<def_repository,repository>>.
>
> Actually, "his" is what was intended by the original introduced at
> 9290cd58 (Added definitions for a few words:, 2006-05-03).  
> ...
> I do not mind neutering the expression with "the other party",
> especially since that would help reduce confusion.  How about
> phrasing
>
>     In such a case, you do not make a new <<def_merge,merge>>
>     <<def_commit,commit>>, but instead just update your branch to
>     point at the same revision as the other party's.  This will
>     happen often ...
>
> perhaps?

Alternatively, since we start with "you are 'merging' another
branch's changes", we could say

    ... but instead just update your branch to point at the same
    revision as the branch you are merging.  This will happen often
    ...

[robi-y]

Changes since v2:

• Fixed the documentation text according to a conversation with @junio (sorry, but I'm still not sure how to properly reply through the gitgitgadget mechanism)
• Fixed the commit message according to the contribution above

[robi-y]

/submit

[gitgitgadget]

Submitted as pull.957.v2.git.1621416530195.gitgitgadget@gmail.com

To fetch this version into FETCH_HEAD:

git fetch https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git pr-957/robi-y/master-v2

To fetch this version to local tag pr-957/robi-y/master-v2:

git fetch --no-tags https://github.com/gitgitgadget/git tag pr-957/robi-y/master-v2

[gitgitgadget]

On the Git mailing list, Junio C Hamano wrote (reply to this):

"Reuven Y. via GitGitGadget" <gitgitgadget@gmail.com> writes:

> From: Reuven Y <robi@post.jce.ac.il>
>
> The text was somewhat confusing between the revision itself and the autour,
> improved through a discussion with @Junio
>

Sorry but I am not @Junio.

> -	<<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update to his
> -	revision. This will happen frequently on a
> +	<<def_commit,commit>> but instead just update your branch to point at the same
> +    revision as the branch you are merging. This will happen frequently on a

Hmph, I sense a broken indentation.

I'll fix it up, so no need for resending only to fix this.

Thanks.

>  	<<def_remote_tracking_branch,remote-tracking branch>> of a remote
>  	<<def_repository,repository>>.
>  
>
> base-commit: bf949ade81106fbda068c1fdb2c6fd1cb1babe7e

[dscho]

@robi-y please note that your PR comments won't make it to the list. You will need to follow the advice behind those "reply to this" links in the respective PR comments that mirror mails on the Git mailing list.

Of course, it would be much more convenient if your PR comments were mirrored back to the Git mailing list. But it is surprisingly hard to actually do that because the information which mail you reply to is not there.

[dscho]

Changes since v2:

* Fixed the documentation text according to a conversation with @junio (sorry, but I'm still not sure how to properly reply through the gitgitgadget mechanism)

* Fixed the commit message according to the contribution above

My idea with GitGitGadget was to edit the first comment, adding this information (and removing the welcome message that was targeting you, the contributor).

I am sorry that this is all very much complicated, with subtle expectations. Like the thing where Junio does not like to be addressed with a @ before their name. Sorry!

[robi-y]

Hi, I hope next time, will be easier :-)
I edited the first comment according to the latest commit message.
(BAH: I had a typo in author, should I correct the commit message and force push again? anything else on my side?)

[gitgitgadget]

This branch is now known as ry/clarify-fast-forward-in-glossary.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@583d461.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@7093438.

[gitgitgadget]

There was a status update in the "New Topics" section about the branch ry/clarify-fast-forward-in-glossary on the Git mailing list:

The description of "fast-forward" in the glossary has been updated.

Will merge to 'next'.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@ca0ebb0.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into next via git@97a851d.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@2543c7d.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@63f07ff.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@da05522.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@97a851d.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@a55ce04.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@97a851d.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@2ecfcd3.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@aa08512.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@a81f52b.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@73b9f04.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@97a851d.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@91e13a4.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@3bb2748.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@2bcf482.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@97a851d.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@2229630.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@74660dc.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@30ab332.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@9c73bcf.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@2ab8dbe.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@293fb5c.

[gitgitgadget]

There was a status update in the "Cooking" section about the branch ry/clarify-fast-forward-in-glossary on the Git mailing list:

The description of "fast-forward" in the glossary has been updated.

Will cook in 'next'.

[gitgitgadget]

There was a status update in the "Cooking" section about the branch ry/clarify-fast-forward-in-glossary on the Git mailing list:

The description of "fast-forward" in the glossary has been updated.

Will merge to 'master'.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@fd0b88b.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into seen via git@7f06d94.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into next via git@7f06d94.

[gitgitgadget]

This patch series was integrated into master via git@7f06d94.

[gitgitgadget]

Closed via 7f06d94.